IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ccp/wpaper/wp08-24.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

European Commission Opinions to National Courts in Antitrust Cases: Consistent Application and the Judicial-Administrative Relationship

Author

Listed:
  • Kathryn Wright

    () (Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia)

Abstract

The House of Lords judgment in Inntrepreneur v Crehan, where the court did not consider itself bound by a finding of the European Commission, demonstrated the potentially contentious and constitutionally significant nature of the relationship between the European Commission and national judges in the field of antitrust. The decentralisation of enforcement of Articles 81 and 82EC arguably carries greater risks of divergent application of EC antitrust enforcement rules. While national competition authorities are linked through the European Competition Network, no such mechanism exists for national courts as this would offend against the principles of judicial independence and procedural autonomy. The Commission, as primary enforcer of competition law in the Community, has therefore attempted to complement the formal judicial 'dialogue' of the European Court of Justice's preliminary reference procedure with a strengthening of its own relations with the national courts. After addressing the broader theoretical context of administrative intervention in judicial decision-making, this paper examines the use of one tool to promote consistent application of EC antitrust rules - non-binding European Commission opinions and amicus curiae briefs to national courts in antitrust proceedings under Article 15 of the Modernisation Regulation. It identifies national cases where the Commission has actually intervened under Article 15 and assesses the nature and efficacy of this soft law mechanism. One finding is the difficulty in finding and tracing the cases, making the impact of the Commission’s advice difficult to judge. Transparency is desirable for legitimacy, legal certainty, and if Commission opinions are to have the most impact for promoting convergent application of EC antitrust rules among national judges.

Suggested Citation

  • Kathryn Wright, 2008. "European Commission Opinions to National Courts in Antitrust Cases: Consistent Application and the Judicial-Administrative Relationship," Working Papers 08-24, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia.
  • Handle: RePEc:ccp:wpaper:wp08-24
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ccp.uea.ac.uk/publicfiles/workingpapers/CCP08-24.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Clay, Karen & Krishnan, Ramayya & Wolff, Eric, 2001. "Prices and Price Dispersion on the Web: Evidence from the Online Book Industry," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(4), pages 521-539, December.
    2. Brian Kahin & Hal R. Varian (ed.), 2000. "Internet Publishing and Beyond: The Economics of Digital Information and Intellectual Property," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262611597, January.
    3. Joel Waldfogel & Lu Chen, 2003. "Does Information Undermine Brand? Information Intermediary Use and Preference for Branded Web Retailers," NBER Working Papers 9942, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Haruvy, Ernan & Prasad, Ashutosh, 2005. "Freeware as a competitive deterrent," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 513-534, October.
    5. Boom, Anette, 2004. ""Download for Free" - When Do Providers of Digital Goods Offer Free Samples?," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 70, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    6. J. Miguel Villas-Boas, 2006. "Dynamic Competition with Experience Goods," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(1), pages 37-66, March.
    7. Grossman, Sanford J, 1981. "The Informational Role of Warranties and Private Disclosure about Product Quality," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(3), pages 461-483, December.
    8. Paul Milgrom & John Roberts, 1986. "Relying on the Information of Interested Parties," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, pages 18-32.
    9. Judith A. Chevalier & Dina Mayzlin, 2003. "The Effect of Word of Mouth on Sales: Online Book Reviews," NBER Working Papers 10148, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Greenaway, David & Hine, Robert C & Milner, Chris, 1995. "Vertical and Horizontal Intra-industry Trade: A Cross Industry Analysis for the United Kingdom," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 105(433), pages 1505-1518, November.
    11. Bruno Jullien, 2005. "Two-sided Markets and Electronic Intermediaries," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo, vol. 51(2-3), pages 233-260.
    12. M. C. Jones, 2006. "Book Review," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(10), pages 1149-1151.
    13. Sartori, Anne E., 2003. "An Estimator for Some Binary-Outcome Selection Models Without Exclusion Restrictions," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(02), pages 111-138, March.
    14. Dirk Bergemann & Juuso Välimäki, 2006. "Dynamic Pricing of New Experience Goods," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(4), pages 713-743, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    European Commission; national courts; amicus curiae; Modernisation Regulation; public and private competition enforcement;

    JEL classification:

    • K12 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Contract Law
    • K49 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Other
    • P48 - Economic Systems - - Other Economic Systems - - - Political Economy; Legal Institutions; Property Rights; Natural Resources; Energy; Environment; Regional Studies

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ccp:wpaper:wp08-24. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Cheryl Whittkaer). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/ccueauk.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.